The problem is that these examples weren't seen to have violated the rules and saying "learn to code" apparently IS a violation of the rules.....at least when people are saying it to verified checkmark accounts but it's not when those same people said it in the past to other people who were laid off. As to the "learn to code bit", the reason it became a meme is due to how many articles "journalists" kept putting out every time there was news about blue collar workers being laid off, especially those in the coal industry. Saying it back to them is intended as a joke but apparently it's worse than not only when the "journalists" said it to others who got laid off, but it is apparently worse than when the verified checkmarks went after children. My problem really is just the numerous examples of inconsistent censorship coming from silicone valley. If those people I posted above had right leaning politics instead of far left leaning politics those posts would be used as justification to ban them off of every social media site, since they have far left leaning politics they are fine to post about throwing children in wood chippers and giving out incentives for people to assault them.
Dont see how articles reporting how coal miners are learning skills is telling them to learn code, but hey, creating a different truth to justify celebrating others losing their jobs because, politics.
Being laid off sucks, and it always seems to happen at a bad time. I don't wish it on anyone. But, it happens. Creative destruction, etc. I have been let go in 3 mass layoffs in 7 years. The last layoff in particular had me down in the dumps for a bit. (My current employer will be undergoing major changes in about 5-6 months and a mass layoff of our entire segment/business is certainly on the table. At the very least, there will be a substantial shakeup. I'm resigned to the fact that organizational destruction follows me wherever I go.) For me, jobs have always been just a means to an end; my job title has never been part of my identity, and I never felt a strong sense of loyalty to the company name on my paycheck. But I know this is not the case for many (most?) and I suspect they feel pain over getting laid off deeper than I did. Also, interesting that I am kinda "learning to code" as I sit here with RStudio open.
Here is a media “writer” who took offense at the ‘learn to code’ encouragement. Hatred of a 16 year old for smirking. Cannot get references correct. Makes you wonder how her ability to handle sources. She is a straight up racist. Yeah, that is who makes up the ‘learn to code’ outrage mob. The same outrage mob that wanted to dox, harass, and murder a 16 year old smirked.
Seems she is a free lancer. And never heard of her before and likely never will again. But since you seem to follow her, odd you didn't post these tweets though: https://twitter.com/chick_in_kiev/status/1090435977091399680 Seems she is against 4Chan, Gab, and Tucker Carlson, all far right wing distributors of hate. Seems she has her priorities on right to me...
So far all I see is that they wrote articles on how laid-off coal miners were entering the computer industry. Not sure why that would be offensive and is seen as mockery.
What's ironic is that while some in Silicon Valley have championed coding as a solution for many social ills, the media has been highly critical of that and most of these journalists were critical of that idea....so why would the right-wingers use it to troll the media? Also, apparently Twitter isn't banning the words "learn to code" but only if it is used as a targeted campaign to harass a group of people: https://www.theringer.com/tech/2019/1/29/18201695/learn-to-code-twitter-abuse-buzzfeed-journalists
you said you thought it was hate speech. http://bbs.clutchfans.net/index.php...a-company-layoffs.296062/page-2#post-12199875
Done arguing about hate speech. It feels like twitter is trying to patch a big hole in the business model. They wanted, and have, given a megaphone to anyone that wants one. It's probably been a net benefit for society, but they amplify evil intents with the good ones and now they're trying to avoid complicity with the evil ones. Coordinated bullying is a problem for them, but hey that's what people are like. If Venezuelans start heaping (and maybe/probably they already have) ridicule on Maduro as they try to pressure him to surrender his dictatorship, is Twitter going to shut it down as coordinated harassment?
I think there is a difference attacking people on twitter who just got laid off as a bullying campaign versus a well known political figure.
its the easiest thing in the world for twitter to just say ' This company is not designed to be arbiters of what is and isn't hate speech and what is and isn't true. So we won't do it, but here is a robust API where third parties can build out whatever filter they want and our customers can choose to use it or not.' So simple but these righteous jackasses like @Jack would rather run their businesses poorly. Concepts like freedom of choice for the customer are lost on them, as they must tell their customers how to behave. They know what is and isn't appropriate speech and they must force their customers to adhere to it.
I agree with you on the principles but I can also see how it'd be a complete disaster to actually do it. All sorts of malicious behavior would prosper and good people would be deterred from using it. The share price would plummet. Here's a thought on industry construct, not necessarily a good one (and apologies in advance that I see everything through the lens of utilities): Make Twitter the distribution grid of free speech that does not deal in the retail end at all -- in other words, they handle delivery for 3rd parties in the twitter ecosystem but do not themselves have any customers. For a customer to interact in the twittersphere, they must sign up with a 3rd party and not Twitter. Those 3rd parties have their own terms or service, filters, features, etc., but connect all their customers to everyone else's customers over the Twitter grid. Customers pick the ones they want and these third parties compete for customers. Current-day Twitter is a monopoly. By segmenting the value chain, you can contain Twitter's monopoly within the borders of the natural monopoly and allow competition in all the segments where monopoly doesn't make sense. Of course, that'd hurt the TWTR shareholder too.
those good people can download whatever third party filter they want. Twitter can have a store and show the most downloaded 3rd party filters. Shares wouldn't plummet. Nobody is clambering for Twitter or Facebook to filter their feeds. Customers have blocking capabilities and can do it themselves.
Given the choice of doing something and doing nothing, most customers pick nothing. Aside from that, though, what you don't know still can hurt you. We could filter, for example, ISIS propagandists if we wanted. But, filtering them from your feed won't stop them from blowing up a train station after organizing over Twitter. Complete customer choice can let bad things happen. I like customer choice; it's essential to our capitalist system. But so are markets, and right now we have a monopoly and not a market. If you don't like Twitter's rules about coordinated harassment of journalists, you can't switch providers without switching universes.
